RE: What's 16 bits between friends?
<michael.dillon@bt.com> Tue, 18 September 2007 14:45 UTC
Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXeKQ-0005lQ-UB; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:45:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXeKQ-0005lK-19 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:45:30 -0400
Received: from smtp4.smtp.bt.com ([217.32.164.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXeKJ-0008Uj-Qf for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:45:30 -0400
Received: from E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.113]) by smtp4.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:45:12 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:47:27 +0100
Message-ID: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0010D6F7E@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <46EFD636.7040008@ca.afilias.info>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: What's 16 bits between friends?
Thread-Index: Acf5+5zIZ/P9l9koSdiHMD35aakWRwABftfg
References: <20070918120411.GF2363@cs.uni-bonn.de> <46EFD636.7040008@ca.afilias.info>
From: michael.dillon@bt.com
To: ipv6@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2007 14:45:12.0806 (UTC) FILETIME=[84CA0860:01C7FA02]
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb
Subject: RE: What's 16 bits between friends?
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
> From what I have seen so far as responses, the counter arguments are: > - there are these wonky things that maybe a few dozen > research sites are playing with that use 64-bits for MAC > - changing the spec would require, like, actual work. Let's > just leave it alone > > IMHO, those arguments don't hold water. If your goal is to enable IPv6 to be deployed in the global Internet, then any changes which reserve FEWER bits for interface addresses would be counterproductive. Since IPv6 does reserve a full 64 bits for interface addresses, that means that there are only 64 bits that can be used in network prefixes, i.e. routing table entries. This allows router vendors the possibility to optimize their code or their route table storage by only allowing 64 bits of data per entry if there are no known prefixes longer than 64 bits. Your proposal to reduce the interface bits makes it less possible to apply such an optimization which reduces the ability of network operators to scale up the IPv6 Internet. Of course, there is a similar negative factor here at a higher level. By making fundamental changes to IPv6 at this late date, we would force vendors to change their code, and network operators to update all their routers. These things all take time, therefore your proposed changes would delay the deployment of IPv6 on the global Internet. > What I'm talking about, is adjusting the specs, so that those > who see a need for new code, can do the work, and have it > continue to be considered valid as far as the RFCs are concerned. You and your friends can do any coding that you want but the only RFC validity that it will have is Ready For Canucks. > Which, in turn, supports real-world use of autoconf on /80's, I wasn't aware that there was such a huge demand for autoconf. Reading the trade press leads me to think the opposite. But if you disagree with me, write a draft and see if anyone else supports you. --Michael Dillon -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: (no subject) Tim Osburn
- (no subject) FIGEN CETIN
- (no subject) B.Svante Eriksson
- (no subject) masuda yuko
- (no subject) masuda yuko
- (no subject) timbeck04
- RE: (no subject) Christian Huitema
- (no subject) timbeck04
- RE: Are privacy extensions, RFC 3041, defined for… John Spence
- RE: Are privacy extensions, RFC 3041,defined for … timothy enos
- (no subject) judith minkin
- (no subject) Anjali Gajendragadkar
- (no subject) Ignatios Souvatzis
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Brian Dickson
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Ignatios Souvatzis
- RE: What's 16 bits between friends? michael.dillon
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Brian Dickson
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Brian Dickson
- Re: What's 16 bits between friends? Mark Smith
- RE: What's 16 bits between friends? michael.dillon
- RE: What's 16 bits between friends? Templin, Fred L